On Friday 28 August 2015 13:28:49 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > > Hello Hackers > > > > > > > > How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake > > > > build > > > > system? > > > > > > What's your motivation for doing so? > > > > I definitely can see some advantages. Non-broken dependencies around > > recursive make being a major one. But I'm also afraid it's a rather > > large undertaking. There's a fair number of special kind of rules, and > > we're probably not going to want to break pgxs for extensions. > > > > I also have some doubts around the portability of cmake and it's > > generated makefiles. We do support some odd platforms. > > If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge > benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the neck since day > one.
As a user, I suffer a bit with the current build system when I try to build libpq in MinGW. So, if moving to CMake means the build is more 'decoupled', i.e. less inter-dependent modules, it would be great. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
